HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3336/2020

Nidhi Vyas W/o Shri Abhinandan Bundela D/o Shri Vishnu Chand

Vyas, Aged About 32 Years, Caste- Brahmin, R/o 120, Jaanki

Nagar, Ranthambore Road, Khatrani Ka Baagh, Sawai Madhopur.

----Petitioner

Versus

Abhinandan Bundela S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About

34 Years, Caste- Brahmin, R/o State Bank Of India Lane, Jhilaay

Road, Niwai, District- Tonk.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat with

Mr. Rohit Kumar Tuteja

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ashindra Gautam with

Ms. Meetu Bhansali and

Ms. Vijay Laxmi Gautam

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

09/03/2022

Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2022)

filed by the petitioner seeking extension of the interim order dated

22.03.2021, but, on the joint request of the learned counsels for

the respective parties, the writ petition itself was heard on its

merit at this stage.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

14.02.2020 passed by the learned Family Court, Sawai Madhopur

in civil case no.159/2018 whereby, the electronic document

submitted by the respondent-applicant alongwith his certificate

under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity,

‘the Act of 1872’), has been taken on record.

(2 of 4)

[CW-3336/2020]

The facts in brief in brief are that the respondent-applicant

filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

against the petitioner/non-applicant for dissolution of marriage.

During its pendency, the respondent filed an application to take on

record call details, whatsapp chatting, call recording and video

recording allegedly obtained from the mobile phone of the

petitioner alongwith his certificate under Section 65B of the Act of

1872. The electronic document appended with the application has

been taken on record vide order impugned dated 14.02.2020.

Assailing the legality and validity of the order dated

14.02.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

since mere taking of the electronic documents on record amounts

to automatic proof of the contents contained therein, the learned

Family Court erred in allowing the application without requiring the

respondent to put strict proof as required under Section 65B of

the Act of 1872. He submitted that while passing the order

impugned, learned Family Court did not consider objection raised

by her in reply to the application. Learned counsel submitted that

in view of the provisions of Section 65B, it was incumbent upon

the learned Family Court to have decided all the objections as to

admissibility of the electronic evidence before taking it on record.

He, in support of his submission, relied upon a judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar

vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.: 2020 (7) SCC 1.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the

prayer submitted that the electronic evidence has merely been

taken on record with specific observation that the issue of its

admissibility or its evidentiary value shall be examined at the

(3 of 4)

[CW-3336/2020]

appropriate stage. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

Heard. Considered.

A perusal of the order impugned dated 14.02.2020 reveals

that electronic evidence submitted by the respondent alongwith

his certificate has been taken on record. The learned Family Court

has recorded a categorical finding that the question of its

admissibility and/or of its evidentiary value would be considered at

the appropriate stage. The electronic evidence taken on record

vide order impugned dated 14.02.2020 is yet to be tendered in

evidence.

Section 3 of the Act of 1872 defines “Document” as under:

“Document” means any matter expressed or

described upon any substance by means of

letters, figures or marks, or by more than one

of